( Sorry about my absence from the list, lost my desktop computer and email, working from the archive and web based mail ) =======Begin Prior Post: ======= 2007\01\24@210635 by Timothy J. Weber Russ Hensel wrote: > There are no intentional interrupts, interrupt routine is just a > return. I have not done > anything to intentionally enable or disable interrupts. In that case, they're disabled. (Unless you've done something *un*intentionally to enable them, like missing a banksel or writing to a wild pointer.) > I have stripped > the code down > to straight line thru it with not button presses, just some blinks then > infinite loop of stepping: > still erratic. Weird. You said you'd tried the 'gotcha' list, but I just have to check - are all pins tied to something? Are you sourcing or sinking more current than the individual pins or the entire chip can handle? Have you scoped the power supply, especially during turn-on? Could we see the schematic? Or better yet, board layout and/or photo? I'm not sure I understood what you were saying about simulation - it works OK in the simulator as far as you can tell? Which simulator? -- Timothy J. Weber http://timothyweber.org -- ====== End Prior Post: Russ Says ===== All pins have been tied to something but also tried PortB floating because manual says that PortB has weak internal pull up when used as output. Source and sink should be ok, using transistors to drive the led's and pull up/down are 10 k to 30 k ( depending on version of the circuit ). Looked at PS, seems ok. Lots of bypass, may try more. Also tried bringing up power extra slow or extra fast. Current stripped down version of code and circuit linked to thru: http://home.comcast.net/~russ_hensel/Erratic/index.html Simulation was in mplab with delays removed, will try again including delay code at some point. Code was ok. Thanks, Russ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist